Quick Links

Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA

The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.

Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Facebook is a healthy part of life when used to keep in contact with people you know. It went bad when they decided that they were in the business of selling data on their users in ways that allow ultra-targeted political ads/political data mining. Then our feeds got loaded with infuriating stuff. Why couldn’t they have just stuck with things like marketing diapers to parents, or the Ohio State Fair to people who live in Ohio?

I just know hardly anyone I talk to uses text messages and instead uses Messenger exclusively. My cousin tried to stop using Messenger for a while but found her friends were much less likely to respond to text messages for whatever reason, so she started using it again.

I just know hardly anyone I talk to uses text messages and instead uses Messenger exclusively. My cousin tried to stop using Messenger for a while but found her friends were much less likely to respond to text messages for whatever reason, so she started using it again.

In an hourlong videoconference broadcast to Facebook offices around the world, Mr. Zuckerberg responded to questions from employees on a range of topics, from Facebook’s behavior over the past 18 months to how it should handle leaks to the media, according to three people familiar with the discussion but not willing to discuss it publicly because it was a private meeting.

The idea that Facebook tried to “cover up anything” was dead wrong, an impassioned Mr. Zuckerberg said, using an expletive in his response, according to these people. Some employees responded with muted applause and cheers.

Some Facebook employees indicated that they believe The Times and other news outlets are unfairly targeting the company because of its outsize influence — a sentiment shared in the session on Friday when employees asked executives what would happen to employees who leak information to the press.

Mr. Zuckerberg made it clear that Facebook would not hesitate to fire employees who spoke to The New York Times or other publications. But after an employee asked whether the company should issue a report about how many leakers Facebook had found and fired, Mr. Zuckerberg played down the idea.

Leaks, he said, are usually caused by “issues with morale.”

...its outsize influence is exactly why news organizations should target it for investigation!

Some people (not me) have phone plans that don't give unlimited texts, but can have wifi access. Also messenger works on desktop as well. However there's so many other, better apps than messenger that it could fall into the sea and we'd be okay.

In an hourlong videoconference broadcast to Facebook offices around the world, Mr. Zuckerberg responded to questions from employees on a range of topics, from Facebook’s behavior over the past 18 months to how it should handle leaks to the media, according to three people familiar with the discussion but not willing to discuss it publicly because it was a private meeting.

The idea that Facebook tried to “cover up anything” was dead wrong, an impassioned Mr. Zuckerberg said, using an expletive in his response, according to these people. Some employees responded with muted applause and cheers.

Some Facebook employees indicated that they believe The Times and other news outlets are unfairly targeting the company because of its outsize influence — a sentiment shared in the session on Friday when employees asked executives what would happen to employees who leak information to the press.

Mr. Zuckerberg made it clear that Facebook would not hesitate to fire employees who spoke to The New York Times or other publications. But after an employee asked whether the company should issue a report about how many leakers Facebook had found and fired, Mr. Zuckerberg played down the idea.

Leaks, he said, are usually caused by “issues with morale.”

...its outsize influence is exactly why news organizations should target it for investigation!

One major problem with the tech industry is that the tech press pretty much is as much a lapdog as your average Pekingese or Pomeranian.

(Honestly, we could replace most of the tech press with the aforementioned dogs and see a marked improvement.)

Because of that, tech workers have a very skewed view of the press, and when they interact with the real press, you routinely get them complaining about the press doing its job.

The tech press are more enthusiast press than journalists, a lot of the time.

That's what happens when your industry really starts post-internet. The first people with their feet in the door on covering you are fans basically blogging to other fans about the cool new info they just learned.

The tech press are more enthusiast press than journalists, a lot of the time.

That's what happens when your industry really starts post-internet. The first people with their feet in the door on covering you are fans basically blogging to other fans about the cool new info they just learned.

No where is this more apparent then in Games part of the tech press. Its probably why Gamergate got so big so quickly, because "Its really about ethics of Games Journalism" on its own is a pretty good line of attack on the game press and the biggest thing that opposed Gamergate wasn't the press itself, but people quite rightly pointing out that Gamergate wasn't actually attacking the Game Press, but random women and minorites.

Edit: Oh and to bring it back to Facebook, Gamergate used Facebook to recruit members, spread memes and target people. People bitch about Russian Trolls and Fake News, but a lot of the Russian success was just being an amplifier to already existing sources. Gamergate got a lot of recruits that never would have heard about it through "funny" Memes shared on Facebook.

Kipling217 on November 2018

Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.

+14

FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular

Honestly if Facebook and Twitter were deleted from the internet a replacement would be up and running inside a month

I'd be happy if there was another game in town that people actually used

It's the MMO problem writ large.
A bunch of people start using Thing X.
People stop using Thing Y in order to connect with all their friends using Thing X.
Companies jump over to Thing X, and now it's where you go to interact with personalities and companies.
Nothing is able to topple Thing X because people don't jump over to the next thing because all their friends stay on Thing X so they continue to use Thing X.

If Twitter and Facebook disappeared overnight, the thing that replaced them would have the same problems, because it’s a data privacy/harassment regulatory problem. Closing them down without doing anything about that would be like closing down the specific meat factory Upton Sinclair wrote about without changing food/worker safety regulations.

If Twitter and Facebook disappeared overnight, the thing that replaced them would have the same problems, because it’s a data privacy/harassment regulatory problem. Closing them down without doing anything about that would be like closing down the specific meat factory Upton Sinclair wrote about without changing food/worker safety regulations.

I disagree. Facebook has data privacy problems because their business model is selling targeted advertising without caring who is buying the advertising. MySpace didn't have this issue and if Facebook fails because of it, then the next generation will have to address the issue or likewise fail.

Twitter has harassment issues because the founder is at best a fascist sympathizer and at worst is a nazi.

The meat factory analogy falls apart because a single meat factory has only a tiny market share. Facebook and Twitter have 90%+ of their markets. It's to the point that they currently have no effective competition.

Mypsace didn't have the data selling issues because selling peoples personal data was still a rather new industry, not because they were a virtuous company. I guarantee you that whoever controlled Myspace at that time is very upset with themselves for not getting in on the ground floor of the ad/data selling industry.

Almost every social media service is based on selling data. Even when it is advertising, the data is what makes the advertising valuable. The biggest exception is Reddit, and it shows with how their advertising revenue hasn't exactly been huge compared to other highly trafficked social media sites besides advertisers just being worried about being associated with fascists.

Even before the latest scandals, there have been questions about whether too much influence within Facebook has been placed with Zuckerberg and, among some investors, pushes for him to renounce his position as chair of the board. But because of the way Facebook’s shareholder structure is set up — and the number of shares Zuckerberg holds — there’s no way for anyone to force him out.

Zuckerberg is a walking stereotype in terms of being a really smart engineer who thinks that all of life's problems are as easily solvable as writing a program, if only everyone else would get out of his way and stop being so stupid.

Zuckerberg is a walking stereotype in terms of being a really smart engineer who thinks that all of life's problems are as easily solvable as writing a program, if only everyone else would get out of his way and stop being so stupid.

Zuckerberg is a walking stereotype in terms of being a really smart engineer who thinks that all of life's problems are as easily solvable as writing a program, if only everyone else would get out of his way and stop being so stupid.

See also: libertarians

I've had programmers remark that if programmers wrote the law, it would be less full of loopholes.

And I'm just like "wtf our code is awful and full of bugs constantly."

}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".

I'm ok with that. Just not the fact that facebook sucks and someone with the knowhow and actual scruples should make a better version or something.

You shouldn't be. The entire point of voting shares is to allow investors to have say in the company's planning - and the point of multi-tier stock setups like Facebook is to not allow that oversight. Again, if Zuckerberg knew that he could be forced out on his ass, he would be acting very differently.

I'm ok with that. Just not the fact that facebook sucks and someone with the knowhow and actual scruples should make a better version or something.

You shouldn't be. The entire point of voting shares is to allow investors to have say in the company's planning - and the point of multi-tier stock setups like Facebook is to not allow that oversight. Again, if Zuckerberg knew that he could be forced out on his ass, he would be acting very differently.

I suppose, though wouldn't it just be a different owner or whoever held the most stock (or even two or three people)?

I'm ok with that. Just not the fact that facebook sucks and someone with the knowhow and actual scruples should make a better version or something.

You shouldn't be. The entire point of voting shares is to allow investors to have say in the company's planning - and the point of multi-tier stock setups like Facebook is to not allow that oversight. Again, if Zuckerberg knew that he could be forced out on his ass, he would be acting very differently.

If you don't like it don't buy Facebook shares. I don't see any reason why giving investors a majority vote would be any sort of legal or moral imperative. If the industry needs regulation than regulate it, if a company breaks the law than prosecute it. But what you are suggesting is not any kind of sensible financial regulation.

While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.

Zuckerberg is a walking stereotype in terms of being a really smart engineer who thinks that all of life's problems are as easily solvable as writing a program, if only everyone else would get out of his way and stop being so stupid.

See also: libertarians

I'd be shocked to find out he's ever read a book that he wasn't forced to

I'm ok with that. Just not the fact that facebook sucks and someone with the knowhow and actual scruples should make a better version or something.

You shouldn't be. The entire point of voting shares is to allow investors to have say in the company's planning - and the point of multi-tier stock setups like Facebook is to not allow that oversight. Again, if Zuckerberg knew that he could be forced out on his ass, he would be acting very differently.

I suppose, though wouldn't it just be a different owner or whoever held the most stock (or even two or three people)?

The thing is that in a single tier system, the majority owners would most likely be institutional investors like CalPERS, not an individual like Zuckerberg. The whole point of the multi-tier setup is to grant insiders - or even a single individual - an overly powerful voice to let them retain control. Zuckerberg's shares give him 10 votes to a regular share's 1,so he can retain control while having a small portion of the share base.

It is not surprising or coincidence that the big tech companies that have been behaving badly have multi-tier stock setups keeping control in the hands of the founders.

I'm ok with that. Just not the fact that facebook sucks and someone with the knowhow and actual scruples should make a better version or something.

You shouldn't be. The entire point of voting shares is to allow investors to have say in the company's planning - and the point of multi-tier stock setups like Facebook is to not allow that oversight. Again, if Zuckerberg knew that he could be forced out on his ass, he would be acting very differently.

If you don't like it don't buy Facebook shares. I don't see any reason why giving investors a majority vote would be any sort of legal or moral imperative. If the industry needs regulation than regulate it, if a company breaks the law than prosecute it. But what you are suggesting is not any kind of sensible financial regulation.

Huh? As the article points out, there's a push to have the NYSE introduce a phase out of multi tier stock configurations, because (unsurprisingly) a system where the founders keep all the control while letting investors shoulder the risk winds up being a drag on stock prices. The whole point of the multi-tier system is to allow the founders to maintain control with a small stake, and it unsurprisingly creates systems of unaccountability.

I'm ok with that. Just not the fact that facebook sucks and someone with the knowhow and actual scruples should make a better version or something.

You shouldn't be. The entire point of voting shares is to allow investors to have say in the company's planning - and the point of multi-tier stock setups like Facebook is to not allow that oversight. Again, if Zuckerberg knew that he could be forced out on his ass, he would be acting very differently.

I suppose, though wouldn't it just be a different owner or whoever held the most stock (or even two or three people)?

The thing is that in a single tier system, the majority owners would most likely be institutional investors like CalPERS, not an individual like Zuckerberg. The whole point of the multi-tier setup is to grant insiders - or even a single individual - an overly powerful voice to let them retain control. Zuckerberg's shares give him 10 votes to a regular share's 1,so he can retain control while having a small portion of the share base.

It is not surprising or coincidence that the big tech companies that have been behaving badly have multi-tier stock setups keeping control in the hands of the founders.

I'm ok with that. Just not the fact that facebook sucks and someone with the knowhow and actual scruples should make a better version or something.

You shouldn't be. The entire point of voting shares is to allow investors to have say in the company's planning - and the point of multi-tier stock setups like Facebook is to not allow that oversight. Again, if Zuckerberg knew that he could be forced out on his ass, he would be acting very differently.

If you don't like it don't buy Facebook shares. I don't see any reason why giving investors a majority vote would be any sort of legal or moral imperative. If the industry needs regulation than regulate it, if a company breaks the law than prosecute it. But what you are suggesting is not any kind of sensible financial regulation.

Huh? As the article points out, there's a push to have the NYSE introduce a phase out of multi tier stock configurations, because (unsurprisingly) a system where the founders keep all the control while letting investors shoulder the risk winds up being a drag on stock prices. The whole point of the multi-tier system is to allow the founders to maintain control with a small stake, and it unsurprisingly creates systems of unaccountability.

His share structure is because he was smart enough not to give up majority control. A lot of people have lost their life's work and legacy because they sold off too much of their company.

I'm ok with that. Just not the fact that facebook sucks and someone with the knowhow and actual scruples should make a better version or something.

You shouldn't be. The entire point of voting shares is to allow investors to have say in the company's planning - and the point of multi-tier stock setups like Facebook is to not allow that oversight. Again, if Zuckerberg knew that he could be forced out on his ass, he would be acting very differently.

I suppose, though wouldn't it just be a different owner or whoever held the most stock (or even two or three people)?

The thing is that in a single tier system, the majority owners would most likely be institutional investors like CalPERS, not an individual like Zuckerberg. The whole point of the multi-tier setup is to grant insiders - or even a single individual - an overly powerful voice to let them retain control. Zuckerberg's shares give him 10 votes to a regular share's 1,so he can retain control while having a small portion of the share base.

It is not surprising or coincidence that the big tech companies that have been behaving badly have multi-tier stock setups keeping control in the hands of the founders.

I'm ok with that. Just not the fact that facebook sucks and someone with the knowhow and actual scruples should make a better version or something.

You shouldn't be. The entire point of voting shares is to allow investors to have say in the company's planning - and the point of multi-tier stock setups like Facebook is to not allow that oversight. Again, if Zuckerberg knew that he could be forced out on his ass, he would be acting very differently.

If you don't like it don't buy Facebook shares. I don't see any reason why giving investors a majority vote would be any sort of legal or moral imperative. If the industry needs regulation than regulate it, if a company breaks the law than prosecute it. But what you are suggesting is not any kind of sensible financial regulation.

Huh? As the article points out, there's a push to have the NYSE introduce a phase out of multi tier stock configurations, because (unsurprisingly) a system where the founders keep all the control while letting investors shoulder the risk winds up being a drag on stock prices. The whole point of the multi-tier system is to allow the founders to maintain control with a small stake, and it unsurprisingly creates systems of unaccountability.

His share structure is because he was smart enough not to give up majority control. A lot of people have lost their life's work and legacy because they sold off too much of their company.

You can retain majority control without screwy share structures. But you can't sell as many shares for the $$$ then.

I'm ok with that. Just not the fact that facebook sucks and someone with the knowhow and actual scruples should make a better version or something.

You shouldn't be. The entire point of voting shares is to allow investors to have say in the company's planning - and the point of multi-tier stock setups like Facebook is to not allow that oversight. Again, if Zuckerberg knew that he could be forced out on his ass, he would be acting very differently.

I suppose, though wouldn't it just be a different owner or whoever held the most stock (or even two or three people)?

The thing is that in a single tier system, the majority owners would most likely be institutional investors like CalPERS, not an individual like Zuckerberg. The whole point of the multi-tier setup is to grant insiders - or even a single individual - an overly powerful voice to let them retain control. Zuckerberg's shares give him 10 votes to a regular share's 1,so he can retain control while having a small portion of the share base.

It is not surprising or coincidence that the big tech companies that have been behaving badly have multi-tier stock setups keeping control in the hands of the founders.

I'm ok with that. Just not the fact that facebook sucks and someone with the knowhow and actual scruples should make a better version or something.

You shouldn't be. The entire point of voting shares is to allow investors to have say in the company's planning - and the point of multi-tier stock setups like Facebook is to not allow that oversight. Again, if Zuckerberg knew that he could be forced out on his ass, he would be acting very differently.

If you don't like it don't buy Facebook shares. I don't see any reason why giving investors a majority vote would be any sort of legal or moral imperative. If the industry needs regulation than regulate it, if a company breaks the law than prosecute it. But what you are suggesting is not any kind of sensible financial regulation.

Huh? As the article points out, there's a push to have the NYSE introduce a phase out of multi tier stock configurations, because (unsurprisingly) a system where the founders keep all the control while letting investors shoulder the risk winds up being a drag on stock prices. The whole point of the multi-tier system is to allow the founders to maintain control with a small stake, and it unsurprisingly creates systems of unaccountability.

His share structure is because he was smart enough not to give up majority control. A lot of people have lost their life's work and legacy because they sold off too much of their company.

And Facebook, Alphabet, et al. are showing that the other end of the pendulum is just as bad - where you have founders who are unaccountable because there is no way to counter them.

Zuckerberg is not the problem; we don’t need fewer bad actors, we need regulation in place to curtail bad actors. Broadly speaking Facebook would be naturally aligned with most of the problems it presents because that’s their business model, not because Zuckerberg chooses to be a dick. I’m not discounting the personal responsibility of social media owners/CEOs to be good corporate citizens, just that yelling at them or hoping for benevolent leaders is for sure going to be less effective than just making sure they can’t do the shit we don’t want them to do. Handing the reins to some investor group only works if the group knows to fear regulatory consequences for misconduct.

...
What stops investors that own 51% of Facebook demanding Zuckerburg listen to them or they force liquidation of Facebook?
Am I right in thinking the multi-tier system just means Zuckerburg has outsized voting power with respect to his actual share in the company?

I'm not really seeing how a tiered structure couldn't be defeated by the actual majority shareholder, or seeing how a tiered structure is anything other than a problem the shareholders have gladly bought themselves into.

...
What stops investors that own 51% of Facebook demanding Zuckerburg listen to them or they force liquidation of Facebook?
Am I right in thinking the multi-tier system just means Zuckerburg has outsized voting power with respect to his actual share in the company?

I'm not really seeing how a tiered structure couldn't be defeated by the actual majority shareholder, or seeing how a tiered structure is anything other than a problem the shareholders have gladly bought themselves into.

Because that's the scorched earth scenario, and it ends with either Facebook being destroyed or the shareholders losing all credibility if Zuckerberg calls the bluff.

And the argument for the multi-tier system is that it gives the founder leeway - Zuckerberg is a walking example of the problems inherent with that.